WAC 365-195-835   Concurrency regulations.  (1) Each planning jurisdiction should produce a regulation or series of regulations which govern the operation of that jurisdiction's concurrency management system. This regulatory scheme will set forth the procedures and processes to be used to determine whether relevant public facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate a proposed development. In addition, the scheme should identify the responses to be taken when it is determined that capacity is not adequate to accommodate a proposal. Relevant public facilities for these purposes are those to which concurrency applies under the comprehensive plan. Adequate capacity refers to the maintenance of concurrency.

     (2) Compliance with applicable environmental requirements, such as ambient air quality standards or water quality standards, should have been built into the determination of the facility capacities needed to accommodate anticipated growth.

     (3) The variations possible in designing a concurrency management system are many. However, such a system could include the following features:

     (a) Capacity monitoring -- a process for collecting and maintaining real world data on use for comparison with evolving public facility capacities in order to show at any moment how much of the capacity of public facilities is being used.

     (b) Capacity allocation procedures -- a process for determining whether proposed new development can be accommodated within the existing or programmed capacity of public facilities.

This can include preassigning amounts of capacity to specific zones, corridors or areas on the basis of planned growth. For any individual development this may involve:

     (i) A determination of anticipated total capacity at the time the impacts of development occur.

     (ii) Calculation of how much of that capacity will be used by existing developments and other planned developments at the time the impacts of development occur.

     (iii) Calculation of the amount of capacity available for the proposed development.

     (iv) Calculation of the impact on capacity of the proposed development, minus the effects of any mitigation provided by the applicant. (Standardized smaller developments can be analyzed based on predetermined capacity impact values.)

     (v) Comparison of available capacity with project impact.

     (c) Provisions for reserving capacity -- a process of prioritizing the allocation of capacity to proposed developments. This might include:

     (i) Setting aside a block or blocks of available or anticipated capacity for specified types of development fulfilling an identified public interest.

     (ii) Adopting a first-come, first-served system of allocation, dedicating capacity to applications in the order received.

     (iii) Adopting a preference system giving certain categories or specified types of development preference over others in the allocation of available capacity.

     (d) Provisions specifying the response when there is insufficient available capacity to accommodate development.

     (i) In the case of transportation, an ordinance must prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service of a transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan unless improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with development.

     (ii) If the proposed development is consistent with the land use element, relevant levels of service should be reevaluated.

     (iii) Other responses could include:

     (A) Development of a system of deferrals, approving proposed developments in advance but deferring authority to construct until adequate public facilities become available at the location in question. Such a system should conform to and help to implement the growth phasing schedule contemplated in the land use and capital facilities elements of the plan.

     (B) Conditional approval through which the developer agrees to mitigate the impacts.

     (C) Denial of the development, subject to resubmission when adequate public facilities are made available.

     (e) Form, timing and duration of concurrency approvals. The system should include provisions for how to show that a project has met the concurrency requirement, whether as part of another approval document (e.g., permit, platting decisions, planned unit development) or as a separate certificate of concurrency, possibly a transferable document. This choice, of necessity, involves determining when in the approval process the concurrency issue is evaluated and decided. Approvals, however made, should specify the length of time that a concurrency determination will remain effective, including requirements for development progress necessary to maintain approval.

     (f) Provisions for interjurisdictional coordination.

     (4) Planning jurisdictions should consider integrating SEPA compliance on the project-specific level with the case-by-case process for concurrency management.



[Statutory Authority: RCW 36.70A.190 (4)(b). 93-17-040, § 365-195-835, filed 8/11/93, effective 9/11/93.]